Chairman Kehoe stated that the Applicant has requested that the public hearing on this application for a preliminary subdivision approval be adjourned. This item would be put back on the agenda for the next Planning Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 24th.

Edmond Gemmola, architect for the Applicant, and Fred Nicotra and Anthony Branchinelli of Croton View Properties, LLC, owner of the property, were present.

Mr. Gemmola said that the Applicant’s plans have been revised to address the Planning Board’s comments from the last meeting. The revised site plan shows a new concrete sidewalk, which joins the existing sidewalk. Mr. Gemmola said that the Planning Board had asked at the last meeting if there might be a way to create an overhang as part of this tenant space addition. The overhang would serve to protect pedestrians from inclement weather. Mr. Gemmola said that, rather than putting up a retractable awning/canopy, they are proposing a light weight space frame with a stretched waterproof canvas canopy that would be attached to the existing fascia of the building. From the front this space frame would appear to be straight; from the side, it would be pitched. Mr. Gemmola said that the Advisory Board on the Visual
Environment (VEB) reviewed the Applicant’s plans at their meeting last night. One of the VEB members suggested that “the new canopy carry the same vertical lines as the existing but that the color [should] be different, warmer.” Mr. Gemmola said that the space frame would be there permanently. It would still be a roof overhang; it would be the same height as the fascia from the front and be sloped from the side. Chairman Kehoe said that, to him, the overhang presently being proposed seems somewhat convoluted, to which Mr. Gemmola said that it is their (the Applicant’s) attempt to provide a means of keeping the rain off of pedestrians. Mr. Gemmola said that he, personally, would not make the new canopy a different color. He would think that the color of the canopy should be the same as the existing architecture. Board members Aarons and Kauderer agreed that the color should be the same. Mr. Aarons added that it should be made to be an innocuous
architectural feature. Mr. Gemmola said that he would keep the canopy the same color and create some vertical stripes (striations) to blend in. Chairman Kehoe said that he would agree with board members Aarons and Kauderer that it should not be a different color.

Mr. Gemmola noted that the VEB had concerns about the small corner alcove area to the rear of the new tenant space that abuts the rear of the drycleaners. The VEB suggested that, for the safety of shoppers, this corner alcove should be closed off with an entrance through a locked door. Mr. Gemmola said that he has suggested that a gate could be installed in that location that could be closed at night. Mr. Gemmola noted that it is not possible to close in the whole space for the new addition because there is an access way to the drycleaners in that location. Mr. Gemmola said that they could put in a gate that would fold in toward the building during the day. Mr. Kauderer asked who would close the gate, to which Mr. Nicotra suggested that the drycleaners could close the gate when they lock up for the night. The Village
Engineer noted that, as part of this proposal, the bicycle rack would be taken out of the area where the new tenant space is being constructed and would be moved to this corner alcove area; if the gate were closed during the day, it would discourage the use of this bicycle rack. Mr. Nicotra suggested that to solve this problem they could close the gate only at night. Mr. Aarons asked if the bicycles on the rack would get in the way of the door opening up to the drycleaners, to which Mr. Gemmola said that the bicycles would not get in the way. There would be room for the door to swing open.

Chairman Kehoe noted that a major issue discussed at the last meeting was the parking at the shopping center. Mr. Gemmola said that, in so far as the parking for the new tenant space is concerned, they have reconfigured the double row of parking spaces situated across from the proposed addition to get in two more 8-foot wide parking spaces. In the new configuration, there would be 15 spaces per row as opposed to 14 spaces. Mr. Gemmola noted that it was brought up at the last meeting how difficult it currently is for motorists to exit the parking lot onto Maple Street from the double rows of parking spaces at the shopping center. Mr. Gemmola explained their proposed changes to the parking lanes/aisles, which included narrowing the parking spaces and reconfiguring the layout of the traffic islands. Mr. Gemmola said that on
the Applicant’s revised plan, they have tightened up the traffic island across from the Post Office to make more room for cars exiting the lot to swing out and enter the proper exit lane. Mr. Gemmola noted that the Planning Board also asked that they look into ways of changing the location of the existing exterior Post Office mail boxes. At present, motorists have to enter the opposite lane of traffic to use these mail boxes. Mr. Gemmola distributed to the board members a “Proposed Alternate Parking Layout Plan” showing two mail boxes in a new center island in the middle of the traffic lane in front of the Post Office. Mr. Gemmola noted that the Post Office might object to this location for the mail boxes. With the mail boxes in this location, a Post Office employee would have to block traffic to take the mail out of the boxes. Ms. Allen noted that when Zeytinia came before the Planning Board the Post Office objected to moving the mail boxes. She would still think that it
might be worthwhile to contact the Post Office and bring up the subject again. Mr. Gemmola said that this new layout shows bollards at the front and back of the new center island, which would make it more difficult for snow plows to maneuver in the wintertime. Ms. Allen said that the Village Engineer would probably be the appropriate person to contact the Post Office about this change in the location of the mail boxes. She would think that the change being proposed would be an advantage to the traffic flow in front of the Post Office and liquor store. The Village Engineer said that a concern that he has with the new plan is that if a motorist were to “pause too much” at the mail box, he/she would block traffic into the shopping center. The Village Engineer noted that there is a “No Parking Fire Lane” the full length of the front of the Post Office. He would need to check with the Fire Department to make sure that enough emergency vehicular access
is being provided. Chairman Kehoe suggested that this matter regarding the mail boxes could be put into the Planning Board’s resolution as an advisory condition.

Chairman Kehoe said that when the new tenant space has been leased, the Applicant would need to come back before the Planning Board with an application for the signage.

The Village Engineer went over the parking calculations for the shopping center. The Village Engineer said that 148 parking spaces are shown on the site plan. Two additional spaces would be required for the new tenant space addition. The Village Engineer said that there are 16 seats in the Black Cow and 12 seats in Zeytinia. The number of parking spaces required for the seating at the Black Cow and Zeytinia is 7 parking spaces. The Village Engineer said that, by Code, the parking calculation based on the square footage is 1 space per 250 square feet, which comes to 142.88 (143) spaces.

Mr. Branchinelli told the Planning Board that there is nothing in the Post Office lease that states how many parking spaces the Post Office has; there is no specific area where they can park their vehicles. Mr. Branchinelli said that the Post Office parks their vans/trucks back to back. He noted that the employees of the Post Office have parking permits for their own cars.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the plan shows 148 parking spaces when 142.88 (143) parking spaces are required. Mr. Gemmola said that, with respect to the parking, he has “pushed back” the double lanes to give more room for motorists to pull out. Mr. Gemmola said that, in his view, this was not an onerous request, and it frees up the area. Mr. Aarons expressed concern about the parking spaces being so tight. The shopping center has a grocery store. He would think that wider parking spaces are more suitable for people trying to maneuver grocery carts. Ms. Allen asked what the width requirement for a parking space is, to which Mr. Gemmola said that municipal ordinances vary as to the size of a parking space. Mr. Aarons suggested that, perhaps, part of the lot could be restriped for narrower parking spaces and the rest
could be left the way it is. The narrower parking spaces could be provided in the lanes closest to the Post Office. Mr. Kauderer said that he would agree with Mr. Aarons that the entire lot should not be restriped for narrower spaces. He would be concerned that people would “bang up” their cars. Mr. Branchinelli said that no one uses the cart corral in the parking lot. Perhaps, to gain more room for the parking, they could eliminate this cart corral. Chairman Kehoe asked if the other members agreed with Mr. Aarons’ suggestion to provide the narrower parking spaces in the lanes closest to the Post Office, to which the board members all agreed. Chairman Kehoe summed up the Planning Board’s comments on the parking change(s) stating that the parking spaces closest to the Post Office should be made narrower to improve the turning radii in that location. The two parking spots for the new tenant space should be added. The rest of the parking lot should be left as is.

The Village Engineer reviewed again for the board the calculations for the parking stating that the previous site plan approval required 148 spaces. In December 1992 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for 8 parking spaces making the required number 140 spaces. This number did not include the extra parking needed for seating. Based on the seating, 7 additional parking spaces are required. Finally, the new tenant space requires two more spaces. Chairman Kehoe noted that the site plan shows 150 spaces and 149 are required. Chairman Kehoe said that based on the calculations that the Village Engineer has provided tonight, the Applicant would not need to seek a variance for the parking.

Chairman Kehoe summarized the Planning Board’s discussion on the parking stating that the Planning Board agrees that the island in front of the post office should be redesigned to help with the turning radii. The island would be pushed back and the parking spaces made slightly smaller. The board does not go along with the Applicant’s changes that were proposed tonight for the other parking lanes.

Mr. Gemmola said that as part of the overall parking lot improvements, the Applicant intends to align the two “finger” curbs at the entrance off of Maple Street across from Municipal Place.

Chairman Kehoe said that with respect to the canopy, the Planning Board’s preference is that the color be the same as, or a complimentary color to, the existing architecture. Mr. Gemmola said that he, personally, would keep a stripe on it to match the texture of the siding. Chairman Kehoe said that it would make sense from a design standpoint to keep the vertical lines. Mr. Gemmola suggested that before installing the canopy he could show a sample of it to the Village Engineer.

Chairman Kehoe said that when the new tenant space has been leased, the Applicant would need to come back before the Planning Board with a sign application.

Chairman Kehoe said that he, personally, would prefer not to have security fencing installed in the alcove at the rear door of the drycleaners. He thinks that it is “too urban” (of a concept) to have it fenced off at night. Chairman Kehoe suggested that should it eventually become desirable to install this fencing, the Applicant/owners of the shopping center could discuss this matter with the Village Engineer.

Chairman Kehoe said that the other matter discussed tonight pertains to the relocation of the exterior Post Office mail boxes. The Village Engineer would contact the Post Office to see if they would be agreeable to moving the mail boxes.

The Village Engineer asked if the Planning Board wants the shopping cart corral to remain, to which the board members agreed that it should remain.

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution. Chairman Kehoe summarized the conditions that should be included in the resolution. Chairman Kehoe noted that condition #1 regarding the signage for the new tenant space addition, which is (has been) incorporated into the resolution, should remain. There should be a condition included regarding the redesign of the parking lot island in front of the post office to improve turning movements. Chairman Kehoe noted that, as discussed tonight, the Planning Board agrees to the concept to install a space frame with a canopy/awning as long as this canopy/awning is the same color, or a complimentary color to, the existing architecture. Chairman Kehoe noted that, at this time, the Planning Board would not require a security fence in the alcove at the rear of the drycleaners; however, if
deemed necessary at some point in the future, the owners of the shopping center could discuss this matter with the Village Engineer. Finally, the Village Engineer should contact the Post Office regarding the proposal for the relocation of the mail boxes.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the conditions just discussed. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Kauderer, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

Chairman Kehoe noted that two of the neighboring residents of the diner Charles Henley of 7 Hudson Street and Harold Lockwood of 11 Hudson Street are present tonight. Chairman Kehoe told Messrs. Henley and Lockwood that the Planning Board is in receipt of their letters regarding the Croton Colonial Diner application. Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board would more than likely be scheduling the public hearing on this application for the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting. Messrs. Henley and Lockwood could speak tonight on this application; however, if they are going to make the same comments at the public hearing, then, they should keep that in mind.

Chairman Kehoe reviewed the history of this application stating that the Planning Board declared itself Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in July 2009. The Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) reviewed this application for a Determination of Consistency in December 2009. The Applicant went before the Zoning Board of Appeals in the spring of 2010 and was granted the approval(s) of their special permits and variances in June of 2010.

Mr. Gemmola explained to the Planning Board the revisions made to the Applicant’s site plan. Mr. Gemmola stated that the WAC had asked to see the drainage/runoff from the site. Mr. Gemmola said that there would be no underground water going into the Duck Pond. Any water runoff would go out to the catch basin on the west side of South Riverside Avenue. As requested by the WAC, a catch basin has been added, which ties into the existing basins. Mr. Gemmola said that as part of the Applicant’s proposal the entrance on Hudson Street would be closed off and “filled in” with a stone wall. This “new” stone wall would join the existing wall, which continues along the border of the Applicant’s property on Hudson Street. A new chain link fence would be provided to match the existing chain link fence atop the
wall. Mr. Gemmola said that the trash container would be moved directly behind the building (diner). Mr. Gemmola said that six parking spaces have been designated for employee parking at the rear of the diner. A handicap ramp has been added. Mr. Gemmola pointed out to the Planning Board the layout for a handicap entrance at the side of the building. Mr. Gemmola noted to the board members that they (the Applicant) had a sidewalk, “which went to nowhere.” They eliminated the sidewalk and put in a stone wall and landscaping. Mr. Gemmola said that, as part of this proposal, the entrance into the diner parking lot from Bungalow Road would be a right turn “in only” entrance. The Applicant intends to maintain the vegetation along Bungalow Road for sight distance purposes. Mr. Gemmola noted that on a previous plan, the Applicant was proposing to add more parking spaces. This is no longer the case; the number of parking spaces would remain the same.
The wall on the Bungalow Road side of the property would remain. Any crumbling walls would be replaced. All walls on the property, new and existing, would be faced with stone.

Chairman Kehoe noted that a parking lot is now being proposed on the Applicant’s lot on Hudson Street where a house used to be.

Chairman Kehoe noted that on the previous site plan, the Applicant was proposing to cut into the slope at the rear of the diner so as to obtain an additional six parking spaces. This is no longer the case. Mr. Gemmola said that after having heard the comments from the neighbors at the Zoning Board hearing, they decided to “keep that area green.” It would have been nice to have the additional parking spaces, but people wanted the landscaping. Mr. Aarons asked how many spaces would be gained with the new parking lot configuration, to which Mr. Klein said that there would be no additional spaces gained. Chairman Kehoe said that the Applicant would be gaining the spaces on the lot on Hudson Street where the house was razed, to which Mr. Gemmola said that this is true; however, parking spaces are being lost in the
area where the handicap ramp is being installed. Ms. Allen noted that a relatively recent (amended) site plan for the diner showed a handicap ramp, which was never installed. Chairman Kehoe said that the previous plan reflected three handicap spaces whereas the new (revised) plan shows only two, to which Mr. Gemmola responded that two handicap spaces are required by code. They (the Applicant) are also providing a van drop-off area, which counts as an additional handicap parking space.

Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Klein to explain the nature of the special permits and variances that were granted. Mr. Klein said that a special permit was required for the commercial parking in a residential area (Hudson Street). The Applicant had previously been granted a special permit for the parking along Bungalow Road. The Applicant went before the Zoning Board to renew this special permit. Finally, a variance was required to remove the barrier between the back parking area on Bungalow Road and the main parking area.

The Village Engineer noted that at the Zoning Board hearing there was some discussion about the stone wall on Hudson Street. A condition in the Zoning Board resolution of approval states that the chain link fence on top of the stone wall shall be changed to a wrought iron fence. Chairman Kehoe questioned if the Zoning Board could put a condition on a site plan, to which the Village Engineer said that, “This is a condition by the ZBA; if the Planning Board wants something else, it would have to be resolved between the two boards.” The Village Engineer noted that the Zoning Board deferred the decision on the landscaping along Bungalow Road to the Planning Board. Mr. Aarons said that he would like to hear from the public about the fencing on Hudson Street.

The Applicant’s landscape architect David Ferris Miller came forward and described the landscaping being proposed. Mr. Miller said that he tried to give a residential look to the landscaping. He is proposing to install flowering trees and conifers to give color all year around. Mr. Miller named some of the proposed plantings (flowering plum trees, cherry trees, hydrangeas, etc.). Mr. Miller said that conifers (evergreen trees) would be planted in front of the stone walls and fencing on Hudson Street. In the Bungalow Road area plantings would be installed in front of the stone wall and in the area(s) way in the back. Among the species of flowers, rose bushes would be planted that would be in bloom from spring to fall. He is also proposing landscaped islands and a new planter along Bungalow Road and some new
shrubbery in the front along South Riverside Avenue. Chairman Kehoe noted that planting beds would be created, to which Mr. Miller said that this is, indeed, the case. The Village Engineer asked if there would be a need for an irrigation system. Mr. Miller said that they would have to bring in new soil for the planting beds. An irrigation system would be helpful, but it would be “yet another cost for the owner.” Chairman Kehoe asked if a bond would be required in case plants die, to which the Village Engineer said that this is a matter for the Planning Board to discuss. The Village Code requires that a commercial property owner maintain site features per the site plan approval. The Village would issue a violation if the site were not properly maintained.

Mr. Aarons asked what the anticipated growth would be of the vegetation being planted on the perimeter of the property at the Hudson Street and Elm Street intersection, to which Mr. Miller said that the flowering pear trees being proposed would be 14 to 16 feet in height when planted and would grow to a height of approximately 40 feet. Chairman Kehoe said that the Village Engineer had asked the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) to look at the landscaping, but they have not gotten back to him yet.

The Village Engineer noted that Mr. Gemmola had said earlier in the meeting tonight that the existing retaining walls are going to be faced with stone. The Village Engineer asked Mr. Gemmola if the retaining wall at the rear property line in back of 8 Hudson Street would be faced with stone, to which Mr. Gemmola said that, indeed, it would be.

The Village Engineer said that, with respect to 6 Hudson Street, Mr. Gemmola should put a note on the plan(s) to abandon all existing utility connections out to the street.

The Village Engineer said that all typical site details should be shown on the plan(s) including the trash enclosure, planting details, catch basins, fencing, etc. The Village Engineer asked Mr. Gemmola if the concrete pad for the existing dumpster area would be demolished, to which Mr. Gemmola said that he does not know. The Village Engineer asked that Mr. Gemmola discuss this matter with the property owner. The Village Engineer asked if the existing light poles were going to be removed, to which Mr. Gemmola said that, with respect to the lighting at the diner, he has included with the Applicant’s plans a proposed photometric plan. The Village Engineer referred to the proposed photometric plan and questioned why there are “zeros” being shown on the front steps of the diner. Mr. Gemmola did not know and suggested that
he could provide a plan showing the photometrics on the existing lighting at the diner. The Village Engineer said that rather than providing this plan, Mr. Gemmola could (just) change the boundary of the photometric analysis to not include the front. Mr. Gemmola said that he would look into the photometric analysis that was done to know what was included. Chairman Kehoe asked if the Applicant is proposing new light fixtures in the parking lot, to which Mr. Gemmola said that they are. Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Gemmola that a detail of these new light fixtures should (also) be provided.

Charles Henley came forward and told the board members that the neighboring residents of the diner property are opposed to the owner of the diner using residential property for a commercial parking lot. Mr. Henley said that he has gathered signatures of the neighboring residents who are all opposed to using 6 Hudson Street for parking. Mr. Henley said that he does not understand why, when the property owner razed the house on 6 Hudson Street, there were not stipulations for this property owner to put in another house. Mr. Henley said that the area was supposed to be covered with sod and grass, and this was never done. Mr. Henley said that “The neighbors are not getting anything out of this.” The property owner has not done what the Village said to do. “He [the property owner] was not supposed to build a house,
tear it down, and put up a parking lot.” Mr. Henley said that the neighbors would be more agreeable to the other changes being proposed if the parking lot on 6 Hudson Street were “out of the equation.” Mr. Henley said that the Planning Board is being asked to reverse its own decision. Codes are being violated. The owner of the diner bought 8 Hudson Street for a reason. “We should be assured that he did not buy [this property] for commercial purposes.”

Mr. Henley told the board that when the Applicant went before the Zoning Board this past May, the Zoning Board agreed to 6 parking spaces for 6 Hudson Street. There are more than 6 parking spaces being shown on the current plan. Mr. Henley said that he counts 12 parking spaces. Mr. Henley expressed concern about the relocation of the trash dumpster behind the diner. The dumpster would be closer to the residents on Hudson Street and Elm Street. He would be concerned about odors emanating from the dumpster. Mr. Henley said that, according to the Applicant’s architect, the Applicant is proposing to eliminate the existing sidewalk. People use this sidewalk to go to the Duck Pond. Mr. Henley said that he would think that the Village would have to be careful about eradicating sidewalks. Mr. Henley noted
that with the entrance to the diner on Hudson Street removed, children will not be able to cut through the diner parking lot like they do now. Children will have to go around a blind corner where Hudson Street intersects South Riverside Avenue. He would be concerned about this blind spot as it pertains to the safety of the children. Mr. Henley noted that the slope behind the diner off of Bungalow Road is very steep. Perhaps, something should be done to shore up that hill. Mr. Henley said that it was noted at the Zoning Board meeting in May that the Planning Board had recommended that the Zoning Board grant the requested variance(s).

Mr. Kauderer referred to the Zoning Board resolution for the diner application pertaining to the commercial parking on a residential property (6 Hudson Street) and pointed out that one of the conditions in the resolution talks about “six (6) employee parking spaces.” Mr. Kauderer noted that, contrary to what Mr. Henley has just said, this condition of the resolution does not say anything about how many spaces there should be in that lot. Mr. Kauderer said that, as far as he can tell, the Applicant’s current plan is not out of compliance in any way. Chairman Kehoe agreed with Mr. Kauderer’s interpretation and said that what he thinks the Zoning Board meant by this condition is that there should be no more than 6 parking spaces designated for employees.

Mr. Klein said that Mr. Henley expressed concern tonight about the Applicant’s using 8 Hudson Street for commercial purposes. Mr. Klein said that this lot could not become an additional parking area for the diner because it is not contiguous to a commercial lot. Mr. Klein said that the lot on 6 Hudson Street is contiguous and, as a result, the Applicant could apply for a special permit to allow commercial parking on the 6 Hudson Street lot. Mr. Klein noted that the Zoning Board put into their resolution that approving the parking on 6 Hudson Street would not be setting a precedent.

Mr. Henley questioned how the commercial parking on 6 Hudson Street could be allowed when the Planning Board has not yet made a determination on the Applicant’s (amended) site plan, to which Mr. Aarons said that the Zoning Board granted the Applicant a special permit. The Zoning Board has made their determination to allow parking on 6 Hudson Street; it is not the Planning Board’s province to make that determination. Mr. Aarons said that the Planning Board’s authority is the approval of the (amended) site plan. Mr. Aarons noted that the subject special permit expires in 3 years. He asked what happens when the 3 years run out, to which Mr. Klein said that the Applicant would have to go before the Zoning Board for a renewal of the special permit. Mr. Henley said that the Applicant had been using the lot on 6 Hudson Street for
parking anyway without approvals. “This is on-going.” Mr. Henley expressed concern that the previously illegal use of this lot for parking had not been enforced by the Village. Ms. Allen said that we (the Planning Board) need to call that out specifically. We cannot just “slide over it.”

Chairman Kehoe suggested that the Planning Board could schedule a public hearing on this application. Chairman Kehoe said that he would recommend waiting until the first meeting of September as one of the board members is unable to attend the last meeting in August (August 24th). Furthermore, this would give the Applicant’s architect more time to prepare and submit the revised plans. The Planning Board decided to schedule the public hearing for the first meeting in September to be held on Tuesday, September 14th.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Monday, July 12, 2010 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Aarons and carried by a vote of 3-0-1. Board member Bruce Kauderer abstained.

The minutes of the Tuesday, July 27, 2010 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Chairman Kehoe and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:50 P.M.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Mills

Secretary

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 for Croton View Properties, LLC, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located in the C-2 Zoning District at 40-50 Maple Street and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lot 30; and

WHEREAS, this Amended Site Plan application is for a proposed tenant space addition; and

WHEREAS, this proposal is considered a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), therefore, no Negative Declaration is required.

that, once prepared and submitted to the Village Engineer’s Office, the sign application shall be submitted to the Planning Board for their review. The sign application would also have to go before the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB) for their review and comments and be reviewed by the Village Engineer for compliance prior to installation.

that the parking lot island in front of the Post Office be redesigned to improve the turning movement(s) of vehicles exiting the parking lot. The island would be pushed back and the parking spaces made slightly smaller. There shall be no changes made to the other parking lanes/aisles in the parking lot with the exception of the two additional parking spaces to be installed for the proposed new tenant space.

that the Planning Board agrees to the Applicant’s current concept to install a space frame with a stretched canopy/awning as long as this canopy/awning is the same color as, or a complimentary color to, the existing fascia of the building.

that, at this time, the Planning Board does not require security fencing in the small alcove at the rear door of the drycleaners. Should it eventually become desirable to install security fencing, the Applicant/owners of the shopping center should discuss this matter with the Village Engineer.

that the Village Engineer contact the Post Office to request that they review and respond to the Applicant’s proposal to relocate the exterior Post Office mail boxes.

In the event that this Amended Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.

The Planning Board of the Village of

Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Chris Kehoe, Chairman

Mark Aarons

Fran Allen

Bruce Kauderer

Robert Luntz

Motion to approve by Mr. Kauderer, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Board member Robert Luntz was absent from the meeting.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, August 10, 2010.